Action Apartment Ass'n v. Santa Monica Rent Control Board

Bad Law
509 F.3d 1020·2007 WL 4225774·2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 27850
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitDecember 3, 200705-56533California3,419 words

Opinion

Opinion

Thomas, J.

In this appeal, we are presented with a claim that Santa Monica’s rent control ordinance is unconstitutional under both the “public use” component of the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause and the substantive component of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. We conclude that the Fifth Amendment claims are not viable, that the facial Fourteenth Amendment claim is time-barred, and that the as applied Fourteenth Amendment claim is unripe. We therefore affirm the judgment of the district court, dismissing the complaint.

I

In 1979, the people of Santa Monica, California, enacted a rent control ordinance by popular referendum. In 1991, we upheld that ordinance against a due process challenge and a takings challenge. Schnuck v. City of Santa Monica, 935 F.2d 171, 172 (9th Cir.1991). We held that Santa Monica’s desire to control rapidly rising rents and to cure housing shortages constituted a legitimate governmental purpose, and we held that the 1979 rent control ordinance was a rational means of accomplishing that purpose.

The ordinance has remained in effect continuously since 1979, but the Santa Monica Rent Control Board (“the Board”) has amended its provisions on three…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.